User talk:Jfulton006

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

talk) 08:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jfulton006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

edit warring a result of the other person failing to offer rationale. I requested response and was ignored.

Decline reason:

You admin to edit warring and do not show any indication that you will stop if unblocked. Two editors offered explananations of their reverts at

Edit warring and make sure to that, once your block has expired, your editing behaviour follows Wikipedia's rules. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jfulton006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was looking for a response on my talk page. I did not see explanations when edit was reverted. I assumed I was being ignored.

Decline reason:

If your weren't receiving any feedback, you should have tried to engage in discussion on the user's talk page. If that fails, you should try to get community input on the article's talk page. As it stands, the block is valid and I would encourage you to edit constructively when it expires. Mike V • Talk 17:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jfulton006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There was a misunderstanding regarding the appropriate place to discuss the disagreement. I requested a rationale and assumed it would be on my page, not somewhere else. That is why I assumed I was being ignored. Unless this block is punitive, I don't see a purpose to continue it at this time.

Decline reason:

So, because you couldn't find the response, you kept edit warring? In my opinion, it would be preferable not to keep edit warring under those circumstances. PhilKnight (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I understand that you may have been confused as to where discussion would take place: Wikipedia isn't always simple and intuitive. I am willing to consider unblocking you on the condition that you do not edit Jehovah's Witnesses, and instead engage in discussion at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jfulton006 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

PhilKnight failed to state a rationale for continuing the block. This issue was the result of a misunderstanding.

Decline reason:

The rationale for this block has not changed. If you believe that the "issue was the result of a misunderstanding," then clarify the misunderstanding to the best of your ability: indicate in your next unblock request that you understand

the edit warring policy, that you will not do so in the future, and that you will instead engage in discussion at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses, as suggested by Salvidrim! above. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.